State v. Briscoe

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Briscoe

243 S.W.3d 492, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 61, 2008 WL 124006

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

DocketNo. ED 88816

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 S.W.3d 492 (State v. Briscoe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Briscoe, 243 S.W.3d 492, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 61, 2008 WL 124006 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lindell Briscoe (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of first-degree assault, in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo 2000,¹ and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of fifteen years on each count.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lindell Briscoe (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of first-degree assault, in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo 2000,¹ and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of fifteen years on each count.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.W.3d 492, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 61, 2008 WL 124006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-briscoe-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack